On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:07:46 +0400 Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2012/11/28 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:55:41 +0400 > > Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> 2012/11/28 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > There's also a lot of logic around what sort of locking you're doing > >> > here too. I think we ought to do the same sort of I/O regardless of > >> > whether POSIX locks are being used or not. > >> > >> We can use cifs_writev for both POSIX and mandatory variants but I > >> divided them to make POSIX variant work faster (no need to check hold > >> a semaphore, walk through a lock list, etc). > >> > > > > Refresh my memory -- why do we need to handle writes differently when > > POSIX vs. non-POSIX locking is in force? It seems to me that that > > shouldn't matter and the behavior should be solely a function of what > > sort of oplock you have. > > A write request can have conflict with mandatory locks set on a file. > That's why we need to check for lock conflicts before issue the > write/read. > Hmmm...and the server might not know about the lock if it's cached. Fair enough. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
